Does birth control cause early abortions?

[Bio-Hazard]

I'm looking around on the web doing research on something and then I come across something I just find very odd.

 

Someone claims that birth control causes early abortions.

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

 

What is this claim this person is really trying to say?

 

That if you take the pill while you're pregnant there will be a biological dysfunction with the birth in which you will be forced to either have an abortion or suffer in eternal pain until death?

 

What is this crap people are talking about?

 

I suspect that most women probably don't test themselves to see if they are pregnant or not.

 

Or else 1 out of 300, seeing as there are usually over one million abortions a year and the population of America is 300 million or so.

 

However, birth control doesn't really matter much once you know you're pregnant because you can't get pregnant again until you have the child.

[Reina]

Uggg I think this all goes back to what your idea of an abortion is. I think what happens in this situation is that the pill prevents a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus which is what Plan B (the morning after pill) does. Personally, I don’t see this as an abortion. If the embryo wasn’t implanted in the lining of the uterus, then you're not pregnant, and its not an abortion.

[swansont]

Uggg I think this all goes back to what your idea of an abortion is. I think what happens in this situation is that the pill prevents a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus which is what Plan B (the morning after pill) does. Personally, I don’t see this as an abortion. If the embryo wasn’t implanted in the lining of the uterus, then you're not pregnant, and its not an abortion.

 

It's a matter of perspective (or spin). IUDs operate this way, AFAIK, but I don't think regular birth control pills do. One crowd wants to define it in terms of life beginning at fertilization. The problem with that is that it ignores (or covers up) the large fraction of pregnancies that naturally end in termination, i.e. a miscarriage. The known fraction is (IIRC) 10-20%, but since it can happen before the woman misses a period and knows she's pregnant, estimates accounting for these are higher, like 50%. That would make the Supreme Being the biggest abortionist of all, if one were to apply that definition in a consistent fashion.

[Reina]

It's a matter of perspective (or spin). IUDs operate this way, AFAIK, but I don't think regular birth control pills do. One crowd wants to define it in terms of life beginning at fertilization. The problem with that is that it ignores (or covers up) the large fraction of pregnancies that naturally end in termination, i.e. a miscarriage. The known fraction is (IIRC) 10-20%, but since it can happen before the woman misses a period and knows she's pregnant, estimates accounting for these are higher, like 50%. That would make the Supreme Being the biggest abortionist of all, if one were to apply that definition in a consistent fashion.

 

I agree with you. But all these christian fundamentalist are trying to make it seem like the birth control manufacturers are probably trying to it cover up that their products cause "abortions." It's rediculous.

[Bio-Hazard]

Tisk tisk, try not to use all. I'm an intelligent christian, I don't go to church that much anymore, I'm not stupid.

 

However I think I'm understanding what the key word that is the determining factor here.

 

The defintion of abortion is up for trial. Not only that but what a birth "control" pill is. Thus the term morning after pills came into effect.

 

Than shouldn't people be using the term "morning after"?

 

Maybe I interpreted this wrong, I haven't been able to understand the bodily function of a woman ever.

[Reina]

Tisk tisk' date=' try not to use all. I'm an intelligent christian, I don't go to church that much anymore, I'm not stupid.

 

However I think I'm understanding what the key word that is the determining factor here.

 

The defintion of abortion is up for trial. Not only that but what a birth "control" pill is. Thus the term morning after pills came into effect.

 

Than shouldn't people be using the term "morning after"?

 

Maybe I interpreted this wrong, I haven't been able to understand the bodily function of a woman ever.[/quote']

 

LOL relax, I'm a christian too. I was referring to the those crazy radical christians that want to make abortion illegal.

[akahenaton]

no one's getting hurt so whats the problem?

if the mother decides later in her life that she regrets it then she suffers.

the fetus doesn't suffer because there was no consiousness

(at least to my knowledge). Besides why doesn't the fetus say:

"hey I don't want to get aborted."

[Mokele]

but I don't think regular birth control pills do.

 

Some do, some don't, it depends which pill you take. Well, not you personally, but you know what I mean. Evidently there are many different pills that work in different ways. I learned this thanks to my GF having an unusually adaptive body which stops responding to pills after she's been on them 2-3 years, so she has to switch to different ones.

 

Mokele

[j_p]

...

 

The defintion of abortion is up for trial.

 

...

 

Um, not really; 'abortion' refers to any pregancy terminated in the first trimester; 'spontaneous abortion' is generally used for abortion that are, well, spontaneous, or of unknown cause.

 

A 'miscarriage' is a pregnancy terminated without living off-spring in the second trimester, IIRC.

[Drug addict]

Some do' date=' some don't, it depends which pill you take. Well, not you personally, but you know what I mean. Evidently there are many different pills that work in different ways. I learned this thanks to my GF having an unusually adaptive body which stops responding to pills after she's been on them 2-3 years, so she has to switch to different ones.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

AFAIK there is no evidence that oral contraceptives cause abortions. There are two types of oral contraceptives, combined (oestrogen & progestogen) and progestogen only. There are numerous versions of each, with different progestogens and amounts of oestrogen.

[danny8522003]

As far as i know, the combined pill stops pregnancy at 3 levels:

 

1) It prevents sperm from entering the uterus my increasing the amount and viscosity of the mucus that lines the opening.

2) Alters the lining of the uterus to stop an egg from implanting itself.

3) Prevents ovulation (release of the egg).

 

I dont see how any of that can be thought of as an abortion.

[swansont]

As far as i know' date=' the combined pill stops pregnancy at 3 levels:

 

1) It prevents sperm from entering the uterus my increasing the amount and viscosity of the mucus that lines the opening.

2) Alters the lining of the uterus to stop an egg from implanting itself.

3) Prevents ovulation (release of the egg).

 

I dont see how any of that can be thought of as an abortion.[/quote']

 

I think the reasoning is if the egg is fertilized, then it counts. So method #2 is found objectionable.

 

...but I have my suspicions that it's just that people (possibly unmarried!) are having sex that they really find objectionable.

[Mokele]

AFAIK there is no evidence that oral contraceptives cause abortions. There are two types of oral contraceptives, combined (oestrogen & progestogen) and progestogen only. There are numerous versions of each, with different progestogens and amounts of oestrogen.

 

Exactly, and some of those prevent the egg from implanting into the uterine lining even if fertilized, and hence would be objectionable to certain groups who give me the willies.

 

Mokele

[Phi for All]

That's not a scientific article, that's a marketing pitch for Randy Alcorn's book! Those quotes are all cover quotes to sell more copies.

[lucaspa]

I'm looking around on the web doing research on something and then I come across something I just find very odd.

 

Someone claims that birth control causes early abortions.

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

 

What is this claim this person is really trying to say?

 

They are talking about common oral contraceptives.

 

""By carefully detailing the available medical information concerning the abortifacient effects of oral contraceptives' date=' Randy Alcorn has developed a logical and thoughtful challenge to every prolife person. The conclusions of this study are scientifically accurate. Birth control pills usually prevent pregnancy, but sometimes they cause an abortion. Questions? Objections? Randy has addressed them in a gentle but firm way. This is the manner in which the often fiery debate over prolife subjects should be carried out- unemotionally, intelligently and quietly. The evidence is before us . . . `How should we then live?'"

 

~ Patrick D. Walker, M.D., Professor of Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences"

 

This guy Alcorn has apparently written a book that alledgedly surveys the scientific literature and he has found (which no one else has) that a side-effect of oral contraceptives is to cause fertilized ova to abort. IOW, prevention of ovulation is not the only mechanism oral contraceptives use to prevent pregnancy.

 

As I read the blurbs about the book, this really highlights that the pro-life movement is really about sex, not protection of the unborn. The real objective of the anti-abortionists is to keep people from having sex except in situations approved by them -- marriage.

 

The possibility of pregnancy is used as a means to keep people, especially women, in fear so that they will only have sex in situations where, if they do get pregnant, they will be able to take care of the kid. The baby is being used as a way to force people to be "moral" by the standards of the anti-abortionists. Abortion made it possible for women to get out of pregnancy whenever they wanted. Now we have this attack on birth control pills. So the objective is to get rid of the most convenient and [b']reliable[/b] form of birth control. Put the fear of God (and babies) back!

[ecoli]

If it weren't for birth control, there would certainly be more abortions. People will still be having sex, and isn't it better to have birth control then using abortion as a birth control.

[lucaspa]

If it weren't for birth control, there would certainly be more abortions. People will still be having sex, and isn't it better to have birth control then using abortion as a birth control.

Good questions. I tend to agree, but that is because I agree with your premise: people will have sex whether married or not and whether birth control or abortions are available or not.

 

However, anti-abortionists don't agree with the premise. They think that if the risk of pregnancy is higer, people will abstain from sex outside of marriage. And that is what they want. Therefore they want to ban abortion and now, it seems, oral contraceptives in order to limit sex.

[swansont]

Good questions. I tend to agree' date=' but that is because I agree with your premise: people will have sex whether married or not and whether birth control or abortions are available or not.

 

However, anti-abortionists don't agree with the premise. They think that if the risk of pregnancy is higer, people will abstain from sex outside of marriage. And that is what they want. Therefore they want to ban abortion and now, it seems, oral contraceptives in order to limit sex.[/quote']

 

Or the two will get married and at least avoid the appearance of unseemliness.

[lucaspa]

Or the two will get married and at least avoid the appearance of unseemliness.

Yes, that is another alternative.

 

However, this highlights an inconsistency in the position: by the reasoning of anti-abortionists, even married couples would not be allowed to use the Pill. After all, aborting a "baby" within a marriage is "killing a child" just as much as aborting an out-of-wedlock fetus. So the result is to limit sex even in a marriage to those occasions where the couple is willing (and able) to accept a high likelihood of pregnancy. I wonder if the rank and file is going to like this. After all, the data indicates that nearly all American Catholic couples use birth control, many of them the Pill, despite the Church's official position on this.

 

Since many of these people also think that God created us directly, it also sets up the theological problem of why God would give us such a high sex drive if He wanted us to mostly abstain.

[swansont]

Since many of these people also think that God created us directly, it also sets up the theological problem of why God would give us such a high sex drive if He wanted us to mostly abstain.

 

Oooh! Oooh! I know that one! "To test us."

[lucaspa]

Oooh! Oooh! I know that one! "To test us."

LOL! If so, it's not stated in the Bible. I'm always amazed at Fundamentalists who say the Bible is "inerrant" but then make the Bible errant in that there is so much that is not in it! Errancy by omission.

 

In the Genesis 1 creation story, God tells people (men and women plural) to be "fruitful and multiply". After that, God pronounces creation "very good". Seems a strange thing to call creation "very good" if you made something "bad" in it as a test. But then, literalism leads you into all kinds of these inconsistencies.

[madscimidwest]

this is a moral question, the science has been discussed by several people. yes if you definition of abortion is killing an egg after fertilized then some birth controls do so. however there are forms of birth control that stop ovulation, so there is no fertilization. the thing to do here is follow your moral compass. if you feel this is abortion and is wrong then dont do it. use a condom or spermicide. (although that is killing sperm.lol) or use a different birth control method that you dont have a moral objection too.